Georgia is situated at the crossroads of Europe and Asia and has witnessed several transformations in its political system in recent decades. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Georgia experienced a tumultuous period of territorial disputes, weak rule of law, economic decline, bribery, and corruption. In 2003, social discontent resulted in massive anti -government demonstrations triggered by electoral fraud and manipulation. The “Rose Revolution” was led by youth who peacefully demanded a transition to democracy1. The protests paved the way for democratic reforms introduced by the newly elected president, Mikhail Saakashvili. The new government was able to make significant changes at the institutional level and drastically improve the socio-economic conditions of Georgians. The young reformers managed to curb informality and restructure the police, which resulted in reduced corruption and modernised institutions. After a series of political scandals and crises, the parliamentary elections of 2012 brought an important shift of power.
Georgia witnessed another transformation under the Georgian Dream coalition ruling. Following its rise to power, the party managed to consolidate control over all branches of the state. Allegations of “state capture” emerged, as the Georgian Dream repeatedly resorted to the violent dispersal of opposition-led demonstrations2. These actions led to further polarisation of the political environment, making it challenging to find viable options to address the country’s deep-rooted problems. The fragile democracy has been continuously threatened by high income inequality and informal governance. Almost every third young Georgian is not in employment, education or training (NEET)3. The socio-economic challenges faced by Georgia were compounded by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic’s impact was felt across various sectors of society, affecting livelihoods, health, and education. The declining youth population in Georgia4, representing only 19% of the total population5, faced unique challenges in this context. The relatively small size of the youth demographics limits their leverage in elections. Beyond periodic urban youth activism such as protests, evidence suggests traditional youth political and civic engagement in Georgia is relatively low6. Many young people clearly display disinterest and suspicion towards politics and politicians. They are more inclined to sign offline and online petitions but were twice as likely as the older generation to abstain in elections.
Understanding youth-focused policies and initiatives
Legal and policy framework: The legal framework for youth policy in Georgia is formed by an assortment of legal documents. These encompass the Law on State Support for Children’s and Youth Unions from 1999 and the Law on the Protection of Minors from 2001. At the core of the youth policy, the pivotal document is the National Youth Policy Document 2014. The youth policy sought to provide a comprehensive framework for promoting the political, social, and economic inclusion of young people in Georgian society. It aims to create an environment conducive to youth empowerment and participation, addressing the barriers that hinder young people from engaging actively in public life. In order to carry out priorities, the Youth Policy obliges the government to develop an action plan with specified timeframes, formulating appropriate measures, and identifying agencies responsible for implementation. The action plan has not been made publicly available, making it impossible to assess the level of progress or determine whether it was indeed formulated.
National Youth Policy Concept 2020–2030: In July 2020, the Parliament of Georgia adopted a new Georgian National Youth Policy Concept 2020–2030 to “effectively manage and coordinate the Youth Policy at the central and municipal levels” to address pressing challenges faced by youth7. The Concept identifies five priority areas for Georgia’s youth policy between 2020 and 2030, including active participation of young people in public life and democratic processes, promoting youth development and realisation of their potential, health and well-being of young people, economic empowerment of young people, and improving the management of the national youth policy at the central and municipal levels8. The Concept reveals deficiencies in the implementation of the National Youth Policy Document 2014 and suggests solutions to improve its management at the national and municipal levels.
Institutional framework: At the local level, municipal governments in Georgia have the overall authority to plan, manage, and implement youth policy. At the national level, until 2017, the Ministry of Youth and Sports oversaw the execution of the youth policy. Following government restructuring and the dissolution of the Ministry, the coordination of youth policy implementation shifted to the Ministry of Education and Science by the end of 20179. This arrangement made provision for a dedicated Youth Affairs Department within the Ministry. They are responsible for initiatives such as aiding youth entry into the job market, formulating legislation pertinent to youth, supporting students’ self-governance, assisting youth with special needs, fostering civil society engagement, facilitating participation in international programmes, and endorsing non-formal education. In 2019, Georgia’s government decided to restructure the youth system and established a dedicated Youth Agency, merging the previously mentioned entities with other bodies responsible for certain youth initiatives, such as the Children and Youth National Centre and Children and Youth Development Foundation10. The Youth Agency operates as an executive body overseen by the Prime Minister’s Office and holds responsibility for youth policy implementation. Consequently, the Youth Agency became responsible for the horizontal and vertical coordination of the Concept 2020–2030 implementation, development of a strategy action plan, and creation of relevant youth programmes and initiatives.
Policy Implementation
Limited opportunities for youth engagement: There is little evidence the Youth Policy 2014 or the Youth Policy Concept 2020-2030 have been implemented in a meaningful way. The Youth Agency has implemented a few projects in partnership with international organisations, such as the Skills for Success project funded by the European Union, and the development of a website with information on youth-focused activities. Opportunities for meaningful participation in decision-making processes at the municipal or national level are scarce, and participatory mechanisms such as youth councils at the municipal level or government-led youth consultations are exceptions.
Neither the Youth Agency nor municipalities are taking the lead in youth policy implementation. They are mostly reactive to the expectations and requirements of international donors, rather than proactive and focused on addressing youth needs and aspirations. The action plan for the implementation of the Concept 2020–2030 is lacking. When formulating local action plans, municipalities do not base them on evidence and lack a clear objective11. Rather than aiming for specific outcomes, these plans often revolve around organising tokenistic activities. Despite youth participation being a key policy priority, evidence suggests no concrete actions have been taken in recent years to improve it. Nino Kapanadze, a youth worker in an INGO, noted “generally participation is something obligatory from the European Union, but there is not much political will and understanding of the importance of participation on all the levels of governance12”.
Political manipulation of youth participation: Findings from interviews and desk research suggest the government does not encourage meaningful youth participation and instead uses youth participation as a tool for political propaganda. Youth party wings operate as a patronage mechanism in which positions in youth wings and party lists are kept for the most loyal political supporters13. Davit Doneriani, the president of a youth-led organisation Young Generation, stressed that the means of participation are particularly limited for youth organisations that are not connected to the ruling party camp14. Furthermore, peaceful youth gatherings have been frequently disrupted by the police. According to the interviews, there have been situations where family members employed within the government administration were fired when their relatives participated in demonstrations. The political environment in Georgia is deeply divided, and it appears that whenever young people participate it is more for symbolic reasons than actual influence. The perception that the government is threatened by the youth is widespread across the population15.
These findings raise important questions about the state of democratic values, civil liberties, and the overall health of political participation in Georgia. Instances of denying the right to peaceful protests and group gatherings reinforced the notion that the government has sought to limit youth political participation. Understanding this context can help better grasp why there is a high level of distrust towards politicians and politics among the Georgian youth.
Key Successes
Historic success of high youth participation: To find best practices in youth engagement, it is necessary to go back to the early 2000s, when Georgia experienced a notable period of success in enhancing traditional youth political participation. In 2003, President Mikheil Saakashvili’s recruitment of a team of young officials into the government resulted in a wave of positive reforms. This key group of young politicians played a crucial role in delivering significant reforms, contributing to a sense of optimism and engagement among the youth. One notable achievement was the highest recorded voter turnout of nearly 88% in the 2004 elections16, following a remarkable level of youth engagement during the campaign period.
Symbolic effect of youth policies: Since the 2000s, Georgia has faced several crises that challenged the continuity of this positive trend. The narrative that the government sought to limit youth political actions and expression hindered progress in improving youth political participation. Despite introducing youth participatory mechanisms on paper, the actual implementation faced obstacles due to the lack of political will. Consequently, the formulation of youth policy can be regarded as a symbolic gesture. It is important to note that, regardless of any concrete impact on youth engagement, the mere existence of such a policy sends a signal to both youth groups and international organisations that the government is committed to addressing youth-related concerns. Despite the prevailing sentiment of mistrust between youth groups and the government, the symbolic nature of youth policy continues to have an impact as it influences the perceptions of young people regarding their potential to shape decision-making processes. Urban youth activism, including recent protests, indicates a strong willingness among young people to engage politically. There has been an increase in the representation of young members of parliament in recent years, with half of Georgian parliamentary members being younger than 45 years old in 2021, showing a rise from 2017 by 12.8 percentage points17. Even though it opted for a relatively low-profile approach, the Youth Agency is an implementing partner on INGO-led programmes fostering youth participation and has successfully facilitated INGOs’ involvement in government policy making18. Despite implementation challenges and a hostile political environment, these findings suggest that government initiatives continue to deliver some levels of impact.
This case country is taken from a comprehensive examination of successful youth-led policy initiatives drawing from the insights of a scoping study “A comparative analysis on National Youth Policies”.
This study is supported by a European Union-funded project called WYDE Civic Engagement led by EPD that aims to improve the inclusion of Youth in all levels of democratic participation at the national, regional and global scales. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s official position
- Dov Lynch, “The Rose Revolution and After,” Why Georgia Matters, European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) (2006). ↩︎
- Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2022 Country Report — Georgia (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2022). ↩︎
- Geostat, Labour Force Survey (The National Statistics Office of Georgia, 2017). ↩︎
- The definition of youth in the Georgian National Youth Policy Document is 14-29 years of age. ↩︎
- Rati Cheishvili and Nina Gogoladze, YOUTH INDEX Report – Georgia (UNPFA, 2020). ↩︎
- Sopho Omanadze, Nino Gachechiladze, and Ana Lebanidze, Generation in Transition: Youth Study 2016 – Georgia (Tbilisi: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2017). ↩︎
- Georgia, Parliament. Georgian National Youth Policy Concept for 2020 – 2030, Resolution, adopted July 17, 2020. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Max Fras, Mateusz Jezowski, and Andriy Pavlovych, Youth Policy in Eastern Partnership countries and the Russian Federation (Warsaw: Foundation for the Development of the Education System., n.d.). ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Youth Policy Implementation at the Local Level: Imereti and Tbilisi (Tbilisi: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2020). ↩︎
- Interview with Nino Kapanadze, a youth worker ↩︎
- Aaron Azelton, Bret Barrowman, and Lisa Reppell, Raising Their Voices: How effective are pro-youth laws and policies? (National Democratic Institute, 2019). ↩︎
- Interview with Davit Doneriani, President of Young Generation ↩︎
- “Giorgi Vashadze: Georgian Dream declared the youth as the main enemy of the country, because they will never accept Russia,” მთავარი გვერდი | საინფორმაციო სააგენტო “ინტერპრესნიუსი,” accessed August 31, 2023, https://www.interpressnews.ge/en/article/126543-giorgi-vashadze-georgian-dream-declared-the-youth-as-the-main-enemy-of-the-country-because-they-will-never-accept-russia/.
↩︎ - “IFES Election Guide | Country Profile: Georgia,” IFES Election Guide, accessed August 31, 2023, https://www.electionguide.org/countries/id/81/. ↩︎
- InterParliamentary Union, Youth participation in national parliaments years of empowering youth in parliament 10 (IPU, 2021). ↩︎
- Interview with Nino Kapanadze, a youth worker ↩︎